Talk:National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleNational Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
March 11, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
July 17, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 5, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Page views for the last 12 months

Other Data and Unconsidered/Unresolved Arguments[edit]

[Copy/paste of material removed by original poster]

Frontier teg (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Frontier_teg

This talk page, like all article talk pages, is for discussion of the article and how to improve it. It is not a place to promote or advocate your own opinion on the topic. —swpbT go beyond 20:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
It is also not a place to introduce borderline copyright violations of other sources. If Frontier teg would like to suggest how this Cato Institute source could be used, with attribution, to improve the article, that would be fine, but copypasting sources isn't productive, either. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The article does not include any data (table of states and effects) regarding the transfer of influence in the presidential election from smaller states to larger states under the compact. I've added the following link to the "Populous states versus low-population states" list of references *

The article does not include the concept that the compact eliminates State level electoral districts and creates a national electoral district thus 1) effectively eliminating federalism in Presidential elections 2) eliminating Congressional power to resolves election disputes without a Constitutional Amendment.* * The article would be better if this concept was explicitly stated. If anyone could suggest a way to include this point and reference in the article, I would appreciate it.

Frontier teg (talk) Frontier_teg

The Cato Institute is controversial, and its status as a reliable source is debatable. As a baseline, any controversial conclusions made by the Cato Institute (which is most of them) should be clearly attributed to the Cato Institute, not stated in Wikipedia's voice. Whether or not those conclusions should be included at all is also up for debate. Cato is raising valid, but contentious, concerns which reach some very bold, or even extreme, conclusions. For this reason, independent sources about Cato's conclusions should be found to provide a neutral overview.
You may want to review talk page guidelines, also. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The Cato Institute article brings forth significant minority views not covered in other sources which I would like included. I'd like to ask straight to the point, who decided that the Cato Institute is controversial and the American University Washington College of Law or Gallup isn't, or the demonstrably far left leaning Washington Post, Denver Post and New York Times isn't? If you're going to accept these sources then I'm scratching my head as to why you would suggest that Cato is less reputable and unacceptable. The only thing I can come up with is your own personal bias. Is there a Wikipedia moderator that can settle this? Frontier teg (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't tell people who've been doing this way longer than you what the rules are. All significant minority views are already included. That doesn't mean citing every party stating those views, particularly a think tank that is explicitly paid to state that view in the most hyperbolic way possible. I'm sorry that the most respected papers in the English-speaking world are boogiemen in your reality, but that doesn't change everyone else's reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Appeal to authority fallacy much? Who died and made you the arbiter of what significant means? The significant minority views that I have included HAVE NOT been covered in the article. You getting angry and aggressive toward me is not solving anything. You say it's not significant, I say it is. So I wrote wikipedia and they said ALL minority views CAN be included and WHEN multiple reliable sources are given THEN the minority view that is being debated SHOULD be included. The fact that you don't agree that something is significant has no bearing on what the rest of the world thinks. And Wikipedia is for EVERYONE, not just you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontier teg (talkcontribs)

Per-Bill Status in Lower House, Status In Upper House?[edit]

Currently, the table of bills in current session aggregates the status of all bills in the lower house in the lower house column and all bills in the upper house in the upper house column; would it be better to show the status on a per-bill basis? This would make it more clear the status of individual bills, especially as they move from one house to the other.Transportcatch (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, go for it! KarlFrei (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 Oregon 7 2017 HB 2731, HB 2927, SB 823, SB 824, SB 825

HB 2927: Passed 34–23[1]
HB 2731: Died in Rules[2]

HB 2927: Died in Rules[3]
SB 823: Died in Rules[4]
SB 824: Died in Rules[5]
SB 825: Died in Rules[6]

 Oregon 7 2017 HB 2731[7] Passed 34–23 Died in Rules Failed
HB 2927[8] Died in Rules Failed
SB 823[9] Died in Rules Failed
SB 824[10] Died in Rules Failed
SB 825[11] Died in Rules Failed

"Current Electoral College Rules"[edit]

"Current Electoral College rules allow a candidate to win the Presidency while losing the popular vote" - I think these rules and how they cause this outcome should be made explicit. Up to this point, the article states that the winner of the popular vote may differ from the winner of the electoral college vote, and that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would change that. But it does not indicate the reason this occurs - the practice of awarding electors to the winner of the plurality in the state.Transportcatch (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, but the practice of awarding electors to the winner of the plurality in a state is not part of the Electoral College system as laid out in the Constitution, as the new text would lead one to believe. You could accurately say:
"Current Electoral College rules allow states to award all their electors to the statewide popular vote winner, which in turn allows a candidate to win the Presidency while losing the nationwide popular vote." —swpbT go beyond 14:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Error in State Electoral College Vote Totals[edit]

Not sure if I'm doing this right, but in several spots in this article it's stated that roughly 90% of the electoral college is in the compact, totaling 245 votes. By my math and looking at other sources it only includes 165. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't notice it until you brought it up. Thank you. I don't know how to fix it unfortunately. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 19:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed the wikicode for the section under the table in the Adoption section and added the numbers in manually. The article intro still has the wrong numbers, though. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The article uses template {{EVs}} to get the number of electoral votes of each state. To calculate the sum, the article calls the template 51 times, passing the state codes listed in the beginning of the article, and adds the results. Since there are only 10 states and DC listed, the article calls the template 40 more times with empty inputs. The template used to return 0 for an empty input. However, Swpb recently made the new template {{USHRseats}}, which contains the number of House seats per state, and changed {{EVs}} to return {{USHRseats}} plus 2. The problem was that this change made {{EVs}} return 2 for an empty input, resulting in 80 electoral votes added to the total in the article. I fixed {{EVs}} by making it also return 0 for an empty input, making the totals in the article correct again. After that, I reverted David O. Johnson's edit. Heitordp (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
To Heitordp: Thank you for fixing my mistake! To all, apologies for the temporary inaccuracy this introduced in the article. —swpbT go beyond 14:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


Connecticut HB 5434 (2017 legislative session) and HB 5421 (current/2018 legislative session are both missing.

[I don't have the technical expertise to add these to the appropriate table or I would.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

HB 5421 is in the pending legislation table. HB 5434 is not in the previous sessions table, because it did not receive a floor vote in either house before expiring, which is the standard for inclusion in that table. —swpbT go beyond 19:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Connecticut has passed the bill in both houses as of May 5th, where it awaits the signature of Gov. Dan Malloy, who supports it. Counting Connecticut, the bill would be law in a total of 11 states plus DC, not 10, as the article currently states, with 172 electoral votes (CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA). Could someone who knows how please update the article? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:2461:D684:3237:8EE9 (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The governor of Connecticut signed the bill into law on May 7th, 2018, so the page should be updated accordingly. Citation can reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ty Melton (talkcontribs) 19:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

To Ty Melton: No, it does not appear he did. The link you posted does not say that the governor has signed the bill, only that he has indicated he will. —swpbT go beyond 13:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree and made the change, having searched exhaustively, including the Hartford Courant, the Boston Globe and Governor Malloy's Facebook page and official website. There was another page called CT Talk or some such, which indicated he had signed it, but no major source has done so. In the course of changing it to pending I found the site very complicated to maneuver, as opposed to other sites. I managed to make a passable attempt to indicate it was pending, but failed miserably in my attempts to make further edits, making it worse. So, I reedited it to get to the earlier edit, which at least makes it clear what's going on and hope that someone with more expertise can smooth it up (originally, I really screwed up Florida's entry, but it is now back to normal). In any event, we await the governor's signature. Have no idea what's taking so long, as he has said he will sign it. Also removed CT from two lists and the numerical reality has been restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andymickey (talkcontribs) 00:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

To Andymickey: Would you mind restoring the text in hidden comments (<!-- -->) like it was before, so it's simple to update the article when a sufficiently official source confirms? Try to use the preview button so you don't need to add so many edits to the history. —swpbT go beyond 13:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Npr is reporting the governor signed the bill. Found5dollar (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry... I just closely red that article and it never actually says the governor signed it.... weird. Found5dollar (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Prospects subsection[edit]

This edit to the Prospects subsection caught my eye. Looking at that subsection, it strikes me that none of the content of that subsection beyond the Ref following the initial sentence appears to address prospects of the NPVIC but, rather, it seems to invite readers to draw conclusions regarding prospects based on the unsupported observations there presented. Perhaps the unsupported material there ought to be removed.

Also, it strikes me that Prospects probably should not be presented a subsection of History. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The reference in that paragraph (written in 2014) shows that all jurisdictions that adopted the compact (11 at the time) were among the 14 where the Democratic candidate had the highest voting percentages in the most recent presidential election (2012). Before my edit, the paragraph repeated the same claim as the reference. I only wanted to update the claim based on the 2016 election and the addition of Connecticut. My update can be easily verified in the articles on the 2016 election (sort the table of results by state by margin percentage) and "red states and blue states", which are linked in the paragraph. However, if you believe that it's original research, I propose rewriting the paragraph like this:
Psephologist Nate Silver noted that all jurisdictions that have adopted the compact so far are "blue states", and that there are not enough electoral votes from the remaining "blue states" to achieve the required majority. He concluded that, as "swing states" are unlikely to support a compact that reduces their influence, the compact cannot succeed without adoption by also some "red states".[reference]
Is that better? I also agree with moving this paragraph to a separate section. Heitordp (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I see that you have made that change. Looks good to me, except that I've added a {{as of}} template to fix a WP:DATED issue. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's appropriate for us to summarize a source's analysis, but not to present our own analysis based on newer data. I've rewritten the paragraph as you suggested. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)